This essay started life as a contribution to the Triple Nine Society e-mail list.
I tend to be prochoice. This affects considerably with whom I come into contact. Even in nonpolitical social circles, I know very few people who are strongly on the other side -- at least as far as I know. Here in Maryland I am active in Democratic Party politics. That also limits the opportunities for ongoing dialog with the "prolife" side. Why am I a Democrat? I tend to agree more with most of today's Democrats on most things. There is also the practical matter of the fact that the Democratic Party really does thoroughly dominate the state's politics. I do bring some interesting libertarian perspectives into discussion from time to time, though.
I am also what is currently called a cradle Episcopalian. It clearly fits my cultural background and has shaped my political and social views to some extent.
My family on my mother's side is working class English. My grandparents moved to the United States about a century ago. My maternal grandfather was a bricklayer. Both grandparents had some elementary school education -- but that was about it. My grandparents moved here shortly after they married. After awhile they had a son whom they truly loved -- just as they did their three later children and me, their grandson. That first son, though, caught some sort disease going around at the time. After only a few months of life, he died. While this was not an abortion, it was, in some ways, close to one. How did this affect my family? It was viewed as a great tragedy. Grandmom returned to England for awhile to recover among family and friends. The young couple was sorely tested by this tragedy. Grandmom did return to the United States. The young couple did have three more children, starting with my mother who just died at 93. My mom in her later years told me about this tragedy. My cousins in England wanted to know why grandmom returned to England for a period after she had been living in the United States. We all regard this early family death as a real tragedy. I can think of no one in my extended family who has ever contemplated having an abortion. I think we have all had sex outside of marriage, but we all know how to prevent unwanted pregnancies -- and we take such measures. I think even those of us who are married use contraception so that we can have a healthy sex life without bringing into this world children we can not practically care for.
My contact with Roman Catholics is generally positive and even friendly. We don't, though, discuss these controversial matters. My exposure to the Roman Catholic opposition to abortion therefore comes through the media. It comes off as cold and uncaring. A church that will not even allow married men to become priests is a church that is making a bad mistake in my view. I am unmarried. I do not regard this as a "gift" but a curse. When I am in love with a woman, it makes my life so much better even I have a hard time describing it. My friends see -- and welcome -- such women into my life. A few extremely conservative married Episcopal priests have switched to the Roman Catholic Church. That church has allowed them to stay married. Roman Catholics who have the good fortune to be part of congregations led by such priests recognize and truly value such men. Roman Catholic opposition to abortion and contraception comes across more as authoritarian control of their members and less as "prolife."
What about the Protestant groups that oppose abortion? There is a strain of puritanism in many Protestant groups. While an interesting case can be made for keeping sex within a healthy, loving marriage, it's hard to justify some other puritanical crusades. For instance, some Protestants also take a stand against alcohol consumption. Not public drunkenness etc., just merely consuming it at all. This tends to make an unfavorable impression as well -- and leads me to devalue their other moral stands.
What factors encourage people to view each other and children positively? My family has been open, supportive and reasonably democratic in its worldview and behaviors. Research seems to show that democratic cultures are stronger and produce people who are more moral than authoritarian cultures.
Summing up, I want "prolife" people to make a much stronger impression on me for actually doing things to help people have better lives. I and my friends actually do that. We're not perfect -- and do not claim to be. But we are good people who try to help humanity become as good as it can.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
An Interesting Side Comment by Michael Griffin
I attended the National Space Club Goddard Memorial Dinner at which Michael Griffin was presented with the Goddard Award for his contributions. Griffin then made a speech that touched on many things.
During his speech he talked about working 18 hours/day, 7 days/week. That remark made a significant impression on me. As I have stated before on this weblog, I am a polymath with an unusual background. I began my adult life by getting a degree in physics from Rutgers. During my second year of graduate work in that field, I got really fed up. I thought I was fed up with physics. I was really fed up with late 20th Century academia. In any event, I tried a career switch from physics to social psychology. I actually completed all the course work for a Ph.D. in that field.
Since then, while I have pursued a career in information technology, I have kept up my learning about humans via reading a wide variety of books. Being a part time artist has also, in some ways, strengthened my people skills. I will notice things that other human beings will not. I will also bring perspectives to various phenomena that most people do not. Some tech people with whom I am friendly are full blown libertarians. They tend to see government as an independent actor too often these days working against liberty. Since I am an artist, I will also see government as being a part of a larger culture and not entirely free to act according to the views of the people who dominant this sector of society.
I will begin this short essay by referencing three books:
Yes, I have read all three books.
Reading the first two books leads one to the conclusion that normal humans require about 8 hours sleep/day. OK, the range might include as little as 6 or as much as 10 for normal humans. Still, though, claiming one works 18 hours/day leads one the conclusion that such a person is an extreme outlier or is doing something quite unhealthy. Peopleware also shows that such extreme levels of work to be unhealthy not only for the individual but actually dysfunctional for the organization. Some people argue that humans have not evolved to do intellectual work for more than a portion of a week that might be as low as 40 hours. Yes, you can go over that limit, but other things will suffer if you do.
There are some people who are extreme outliers. For instance, in 1996 I ran the Goddard Two Mile Fun Run in 12:53 and finished the Marine Corps Marathon. That 12:53 put me in the top 30 people at Goddard Space Flight Center, at least as far as running ability. When I was running races routinely back in the 1990s, I was typically in the top 15%-20% of people in my age group. That made me a bit of an outlier for a middle aged man. Now let's look at two extreme outliers -- the men who were at the top of the Boston Marathon this year. The winning man, a Deriba Merga of Ethopia, won in 2:08:42. The fastest American man was Ryan Hall in 2:09:40. If I had started my marathon running at the pace I set in the Goddard Two Mile Fun Run, I would have been nearly a mile behind these two people at the two mile mark. Needless to say, I do not compare myself to these people -- and I should not.
Extreme outliers can be valuable members of society. For instance, the British physicist Paul Dirac made significant contributions to society via his work in physics. You would not, though, want him in a position of leadership where he had to deal with the larger world. He simply was not capable of doing that. One late in life passion of his was the singer Cher. If Dirac was still alive and Cher showed up at his home with President Barack Obama in tow, Dirac would ask "Who is your black friend?"
Griffin thus strikes me as either a relatively normal person who has been unduly and unhealthily influenced by workaholism or someone so far from the norm that he doesn't realize how different he is. This is not good for a leader of a major government agency. Griffin's admission suggests a kind of fanaticism. Fanatics are not open to other views and ideas.
Then there is the report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. This is not the rant of some "disgruntled former employee" or disappointed L5 Society member who is angry he is not living in some utopian space colony. This report is the result of a massive investigation by people who can be viewed as "establishment." The fact that the board described NASA as not a learning organization and as one where people low in the hierarchy are not listened to indicates that NASA is, in many ways, an authoritarian organization. Such organizations can be quite hospitable to narrow minded fanatics.
NASA leader Wayne Hale has written in his blog an interesting item titled Stifling Dissent that not much has changed since Columbia. This is a strong criticism of NASA leadership in what seems to me the most important challenge facing the agency.
Since that speech I have had some interesting conversations with people who can be viewed as insiders in aerospace. A few have reported that people at Orbital Sciences (where Griffin once worked) were surprised when he was named NASA Administrator. They did not think him a good candidate for the position.
Griffin does have some interesting credentials. For example, he has racked up a number of academic degrees -- far more than even very bright, committed people. He's still working on more. While this can be viewed as a positive, it also indicates an obsession with academia that comes at an unhealthy cost to other things. Considering the time that such endeavors take, one must wonder what fell by the wayside while he was pursuing his degrees.
Griffin's tenure at NASA was also controversial. Some people clearly do not like the proposals that have been developed to meet the goals of the Vision for Space Exploration. While that can be viewed as normal, the fact that some people have gone as far as developing alternatives causes concern. How often has that happened in the past?
Last summer Women in Aerospace hosted a session titled "Work-Life Balance: How Do They Do It?" Three women and one man spoke on the topic. One woman admitted that she did not have a true work-life balance. Another woman spoke of her 70 hour week and her one hour commute. She mentioned having a family. To what did she attribute her claim to being balanced? There was still time for her church activities. That's not balance. That's someone fooling themselves.
Let's now try to put these things together.
We have an agency that needs to change in fundamental ways. We have one leader who says not much has changed since Columbia. Griffin was administrator for four of those six years. When he started as NASA Administrator he gave a speech in which he expressed anger at what he had read in the Columbia report which he said he had read three times. He also said he did not understand the cultural aspects of the problem because of a lack of knowledge of human psychology. While he has given some evidence that he has sought to rectify that lack, one must wonder how successful he was. Some one who says during the course of a talk before a friendly crowd that he was working 18 hours/day, 7 days/week indicates that he didn't look very much at research on work weeks and what is actually accomplished by working extremely long hours. In short we have a very narrow person who does not even know what he doesn't know.
I won't go into the specifics of the various engineering arguments that have come to the fore in past four years. While I possibly could understand the disputes (I started my adult life as a physicist who supported engineering work), I haven't dug deeply into them. I will say, though, that authoritarian groups are not as open to outsiders as more democratic groups. Democratic groups seem to be better at learning from diverse sources. I must, however, conclude that, as fine a man as Michael Griffin appears to be, he was a poor choice for NASA Administrator given the current circumstances.
During his speech he talked about working 18 hours/day, 7 days/week. That remark made a significant impression on me. As I have stated before on this weblog, I am a polymath with an unusual background. I began my adult life by getting a degree in physics from Rutgers. During my second year of graduate work in that field, I got really fed up. I thought I was fed up with physics. I was really fed up with late 20th Century academia. In any event, I tried a career switch from physics to social psychology. I actually completed all the course work for a Ph.D. in that field.
Since then, while I have pursued a career in information technology, I have kept up my learning about humans via reading a wide variety of books. Being a part time artist has also, in some ways, strengthened my people skills. I will notice things that other human beings will not. I will also bring perspectives to various phenomena that most people do not. Some tech people with whom I am friendly are full blown libertarians. They tend to see government as an independent actor too often these days working against liberty. Since I am an artist, I will also see government as being a part of a larger culture and not entirely free to act according to the views of the people who dominant this sector of society.
I will begin this short essay by referencing three books:
- Sleep Thieves by Stanley Coren
- The Promise of Sleep by William Dement and Christopher Vaughan
- Peopleware by Tom DeMarco and Timothy Lister
Yes, I have read all three books.
Reading the first two books leads one to the conclusion that normal humans require about 8 hours sleep/day. OK, the range might include as little as 6 or as much as 10 for normal humans. Still, though, claiming one works 18 hours/day leads one the conclusion that such a person is an extreme outlier or is doing something quite unhealthy. Peopleware also shows that such extreme levels of work to be unhealthy not only for the individual but actually dysfunctional for the organization. Some people argue that humans have not evolved to do intellectual work for more than a portion of a week that might be as low as 40 hours. Yes, you can go over that limit, but other things will suffer if you do.
There are some people who are extreme outliers. For instance, in 1996 I ran the Goddard Two Mile Fun Run in 12:53 and finished the Marine Corps Marathon. That 12:53 put me in the top 30 people at Goddard Space Flight Center, at least as far as running ability. When I was running races routinely back in the 1990s, I was typically in the top 15%-20% of people in my age group. That made me a bit of an outlier for a middle aged man. Now let's look at two extreme outliers -- the men who were at the top of the Boston Marathon this year. The winning man, a Deriba Merga of Ethopia, won in 2:08:42. The fastest American man was Ryan Hall in 2:09:40. If I had started my marathon running at the pace I set in the Goddard Two Mile Fun Run, I would have been nearly a mile behind these two people at the two mile mark. Needless to say, I do not compare myself to these people -- and I should not.
Extreme outliers can be valuable members of society. For instance, the British physicist Paul Dirac made significant contributions to society via his work in physics. You would not, though, want him in a position of leadership where he had to deal with the larger world. He simply was not capable of doing that. One late in life passion of his was the singer Cher. If Dirac was still alive and Cher showed up at his home with President Barack Obama in tow, Dirac would ask "Who is your black friend?"
Griffin thus strikes me as either a relatively normal person who has been unduly and unhealthily influenced by workaholism or someone so far from the norm that he doesn't realize how different he is. This is not good for a leader of a major government agency. Griffin's admission suggests a kind of fanaticism. Fanatics are not open to other views and ideas.
Then there is the report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. This is not the rant of some "disgruntled former employee" or disappointed L5 Society member who is angry he is not living in some utopian space colony. This report is the result of a massive investigation by people who can be viewed as "establishment." The fact that the board described NASA as not a learning organization and as one where people low in the hierarchy are not listened to indicates that NASA is, in many ways, an authoritarian organization. Such organizations can be quite hospitable to narrow minded fanatics.
NASA leader Wayne Hale has written in his blog an interesting item titled Stifling Dissent that not much has changed since Columbia. This is a strong criticism of NASA leadership in what seems to me the most important challenge facing the agency.
Since that speech I have had some interesting conversations with people who can be viewed as insiders in aerospace. A few have reported that people at Orbital Sciences (where Griffin once worked) were surprised when he was named NASA Administrator. They did not think him a good candidate for the position.
Griffin does have some interesting credentials. For example, he has racked up a number of academic degrees -- far more than even very bright, committed people. He's still working on more. While this can be viewed as a positive, it also indicates an obsession with academia that comes at an unhealthy cost to other things. Considering the time that such endeavors take, one must wonder what fell by the wayside while he was pursuing his degrees.
Griffin's tenure at NASA was also controversial. Some people clearly do not like the proposals that have been developed to meet the goals of the Vision for Space Exploration. While that can be viewed as normal, the fact that some people have gone as far as developing alternatives causes concern. How often has that happened in the past?
Last summer Women in Aerospace hosted a session titled "Work-Life Balance: How Do They Do It?" Three women and one man spoke on the topic. One woman admitted that she did not have a true work-life balance. Another woman spoke of her 70 hour week and her one hour commute. She mentioned having a family. To what did she attribute her claim to being balanced? There was still time for her church activities. That's not balance. That's someone fooling themselves.
Let's now try to put these things together.
We have an agency that needs to change in fundamental ways. We have one leader who says not much has changed since Columbia. Griffin was administrator for four of those six years. When he started as NASA Administrator he gave a speech in which he expressed anger at what he had read in the Columbia report which he said he had read three times. He also said he did not understand the cultural aspects of the problem because of a lack of knowledge of human psychology. While he has given some evidence that he has sought to rectify that lack, one must wonder how successful he was. Some one who says during the course of a talk before a friendly crowd that he was working 18 hours/day, 7 days/week indicates that he didn't look very much at research on work weeks and what is actually accomplished by working extremely long hours. In short we have a very narrow person who does not even know what he doesn't know.
I won't go into the specifics of the various engineering arguments that have come to the fore in past four years. While I possibly could understand the disputes (I started my adult life as a physicist who supported engineering work), I haven't dug deeply into them. I will say, though, that authoritarian groups are not as open to outsiders as more democratic groups. Democratic groups seem to be better at learning from diverse sources. I must, however, conclude that, as fine a man as Michael Griffin appears to be, he was a poor choice for NASA Administrator given the current circumstances.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
A Personal Reaction to Larry Summers' Comments on Women in Science
Some people are starting to pay attention to Larry Summers' comments on women in science. A few years ago he made the observation that men seemed more suited to the highest ranks in science than women were. He described men as the best of the best and also mentioned their extreme dedication. Quite a few feminists were outraged.
A few weeks ago in the Washington Post Ruth Marcus brought up the subject yet again by reporting on research that showed men more likely to be outliers in terms of mathematical intelligence. She raised the question was Summers right -- even if politically incorrect. The following week a women by the name of Singer who had been a mathematician and professor challenged Marcus by informing us of the hostility she had encountered even though she loved math and teaching it.
When this controversy first arose, I had a somewhat unusual take on things. I am exceptionally intelligent, at least as measured by standardized testing. I show this intelligence in other ways as well. Today I am a member of Mensa and the Triple Nine Society. The latter limits membership to people who have shown on standardized tests that they are in the top 1 in 1000. I've also completed one marathon -- the Marine Corps in 1996.
What caused me to wonder about the people Summers described wasn't their intelligence -- it was their work habits. Besides praising their intelligence, he also said they worked 80 hours per week. That struck me as very unwise at best, if not absolutely crazy. I thought to myself "I can't work that many hours at physics a week and make sense. What makes these people think they can?" Perhaps they are even greater outliers than I am. While my IQ is around what theirs are, in other ways I can be quite normal.
Here's my take on reasonable weeks. Sleep is important. My own experiences regarding some sleep deprivation make me very reluctant to make it a life choice. There is also research that shows humans need about 8 hours of sleep per day. Some can do with less, some need more, but people who can function well on, say, 4 hours sleep per day are extreme outliers themselves. For the sake of argument, let's go with 8 hours sleep per day. That's 56 hours per week -- out of a total of 168 hours. So, just factoring in sleep reduces time available to us humans at 112 hours per week.
Exercise is also important for people who lead sedentary occupations. I spend about 9 hours a week engaged in exercise. We're now down to 103 hours.
Everyone also needs to eat. Yes, you can get a quick bite at your desk while working. That isn't generally healthy enough as an exclusive long term habit. By the time I have prepared, eaten and cleaned up after meals, I will spend about 2 hours a day doing such. That's anothe 14 hours a week. We are now down to only 89 hours a week -- and we haven't done anything but personal maintenance. Yes, some of that time can devoted to other things as well. For instance, meal times can be used for family and social activities.
Let's factor in commuting to work. Yes, a few people work out of their homes, but that is rare in tech fields. Let's say people spend 1 hour/day commuting. That reduces our unscheduled time to 84 hours -- 82 hours for people who work seven days a week.
Let's now look at three kinds of work weeks.
The first is the old standard of 40 hours -- like my father had when he was alive and my mother had when she worked. That 40 hour work week is only 8 hours/day for 5 days. That leaves two full days for things other than work -- family, community, etc. Even on work days there are 3.5 hours of time still unscheduled for family, etc.
Today quite a few people talk about working 60 hours/week. That's six 10 hour days. There is still one full day for other things. On work days, though, there is only 1.5 hours of "free" time. That doesn't seem like enough.
Finally there is the 80 hour week cited by Larry Summers. That leaves only 2 hours/week unscheduled. Something -- probably lots of somethings -- must give. Family? Community? Or something like sleep? Or exercise? Or meals away from work? The 80 hour work week looks, at best, unhealthy for the individual, his family and his community.
What kind of people adopt this lifestyle? Summers doesn't say. I have seen my fair share of people in science and tech fields with significant personal problems. Perhaps they would be that way in any event. But it seems unwise to organize major projects around such people. An Isaac Newton can come up with some kinds of major discoveries -- but you really would not want them trying to lead an organization.
A few weeks ago in the Washington Post Ruth Marcus brought up the subject yet again by reporting on research that showed men more likely to be outliers in terms of mathematical intelligence. She raised the question was Summers right -- even if politically incorrect. The following week a women by the name of Singer who had been a mathematician and professor challenged Marcus by informing us of the hostility she had encountered even though she loved math and teaching it.
When this controversy first arose, I had a somewhat unusual take on things. I am exceptionally intelligent, at least as measured by standardized testing. I show this intelligence in other ways as well. Today I am a member of Mensa and the Triple Nine Society. The latter limits membership to people who have shown on standardized tests that they are in the top 1 in 1000. I've also completed one marathon -- the Marine Corps in 1996.
What caused me to wonder about the people Summers described wasn't their intelligence -- it was their work habits. Besides praising their intelligence, he also said they worked 80 hours per week. That struck me as very unwise at best, if not absolutely crazy. I thought to myself "I can't work that many hours at physics a week and make sense. What makes these people think they can?" Perhaps they are even greater outliers than I am. While my IQ is around what theirs are, in other ways I can be quite normal.
Here's my take on reasonable weeks. Sleep is important. My own experiences regarding some sleep deprivation make me very reluctant to make it a life choice. There is also research that shows humans need about 8 hours of sleep per day. Some can do with less, some need more, but people who can function well on, say, 4 hours sleep per day are extreme outliers themselves. For the sake of argument, let's go with 8 hours sleep per day. That's 56 hours per week -- out of a total of 168 hours. So, just factoring in sleep reduces time available to us humans at 112 hours per week.
Exercise is also important for people who lead sedentary occupations. I spend about 9 hours a week engaged in exercise. We're now down to 103 hours.
Everyone also needs to eat. Yes, you can get a quick bite at your desk while working. That isn't generally healthy enough as an exclusive long term habit. By the time I have prepared, eaten and cleaned up after meals, I will spend about 2 hours a day doing such. That's anothe 14 hours a week. We are now down to only 89 hours a week -- and we haven't done anything but personal maintenance. Yes, some of that time can devoted to other things as well. For instance, meal times can be used for family and social activities.
Let's factor in commuting to work. Yes, a few people work out of their homes, but that is rare in tech fields. Let's say people spend 1 hour/day commuting. That reduces our unscheduled time to 84 hours -- 82 hours for people who work seven days a week.
Let's now look at three kinds of work weeks.
The first is the old standard of 40 hours -- like my father had when he was alive and my mother had when she worked. That 40 hour work week is only 8 hours/day for 5 days. That leaves two full days for things other than work -- family, community, etc. Even on work days there are 3.5 hours of time still unscheduled for family, etc.
Today quite a few people talk about working 60 hours/week. That's six 10 hour days. There is still one full day for other things. On work days, though, there is only 1.5 hours of "free" time. That doesn't seem like enough.
Finally there is the 80 hour week cited by Larry Summers. That leaves only 2 hours/week unscheduled. Something -- probably lots of somethings -- must give. Family? Community? Or something like sleep? Or exercise? Or meals away from work? The 80 hour work week looks, at best, unhealthy for the individual, his family and his community.
What kind of people adopt this lifestyle? Summers doesn't say. I have seen my fair share of people in science and tech fields with significant personal problems. Perhaps they would be that way in any event. But it seems unwise to organize major projects around such people. An Isaac Newton can come up with some kinds of major discoveries -- but you really would not want them trying to lead an organization.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Background of an L5 Society Activist
I'm writing this blog posting to let people know how I managed to create a successful event for the L5 Society in 1984.
I had returned to New Jersey from grad work in social psychology some years before. Upon my return, I rejoined the church I attended in my youth -- St. James Episcopal in Hamilton Township, New Jersey. I met up with some old friends and made some new ones. The McKenzies were active in Scottish groups and Revolutionary War reenactment groups. They had also started a poetry group. I got a little involved in all three. Through the poetry group I was introduced to a large part of the local arts scene. I eventually became a member of the Trenton Artists Workshop Association.
Shortly after returning to New Jersey, I contacted the Princeton Ballet after reading that they would perform the Nutcracker Ballet locally. While I had done some modern dance photography, I had never photographed a ballet before. The company, after seeing what I had done, made me their primary photographer for the rest of my time in New Jersey. This gave me another link to the local arts scene.
Links to the local arts community interestingly enough also gave me links to political leaders and various parts of state government bureaucracy that normal civil servants (I made my living by doing IT for New Jersey government) did not have. Michelle Mathesius, director of the Center Dancers, was married to the Bill Mathesius, then Mercer County Executive. Molly Merlino, active in TAWA, was married to state Senator Joe Merlino who was also president of the senate when the Democrats were in the majority.
Since I was a third generation Rutgers alum, getting active in Rutgers affairs was also fairly normal. I even did photography of Rutgers sports for a number of years.
Since my family had been active in the Anglican church for centuries, I was also drawn into that culture as more than a regular member. My photographic talent made a difference there as well.
My talents for photography and writing first got me attention in L5. Then, in 1981, I asked why I had never been called on a phone tree alert. I had been a bit active for a few years, knew society leaders somewhat and wondered what was going on. That's when I found out that there was no organization in New Jersey and that my name had come up as a person to organize New Jersey. Soon I had list of about 200 names of New Jersey residents who had volunteered to help out.
Over the next year I spent some time organizing the phone tree. I began calling people when alerts were sent out and simply asked them if they would phone people in their local area. Within a few months I had a functioning phone tree.
In the spring of 1982 I asked my assistants if any of them were amenable to organizing an L5 chapter. We started meeting over the next six months planning a chapter. Our first formal meeting -- announced via the phone tree -- was in August. At that meeting -- held at Bob Werb's apartment complex -- we decided on a course of action. Our first event was doing information tabling at the New Brunswick Octoberfest. I had participated in that event before as an artist.
That fall I approached the New Jersey State Museum about our group participating in Super Science Weekend -- an event to promote science in January. Their reply was illuminating. They said that because they knew me (through art and political connections) they trusted me. If they hadn't, there was a real chance that they would not have allowed our group to participate.
Super Science weekend in 1983 was a success for our group. People came by and chatted. They took literature. The museum director stopped by to check us out. She was favorably impressed. Our group was fairly young but mature. Most of us worked in tech fields. There was a significant contingent from Bell Labs.
That summer I told Dick Peery, the museum's planetarium director, about Spaceweek. I inquired whether our group could organize a Spaceday event at the museum. The museum was amenable.
Over the next year I recruited speakers and exhibits. Since the Space Studies Institute was located in Princeton, they were happy to supply both a speaker and an exhibit. The same was true of RCA Astroelectronics. Through Mensa connections I recruited a history professor from Philadelphia. I hit real paydirt through the Princeton Astronomy Association. In January 1984 they hosted a talk by J. R. Thompson, former chief engineer of the space shuttle main engine project. He was at that time a deputy director of Forrestal Labs. His talk was excellent -- and he was happy to also give the same talk at Spaceday.
Then came Spaceday. Dick Peery and I chatted a bit before the doors opened. He cautioned me to not get my hopes up too high. On a normal July Saturday only about 50-75 people would come through the museum. He told me if we got 500 the museum would call it a success and talk about doing it again. I don't know if Dick saw the three page feature article in the Trenton Times the day before. Our publicist had gotten us a good deal of attention already.
The day went well. The museum director came around in the afternoon. She seemed impressed. All the participants -- including people from the Princeton Astronomy Association and a local rocket club -- were happy that they participated.
The next week Dick phoned me. He was wildly enthusiastic now. He told me 2000 people came. He added that the museum director had said it was the best summer event that they had ever had. Then Dick got a taste of my sense of humor. I laconically asked if he wanted to do it again. There was a pause -- and then Dick realized I was joking.
I told Mark Hopkins of L5 about my success. He was quite impressed. He recruited me as an L5 Spaceweek coordinator.
I'm now going to explicitly state some lessons we can learn from this success.
I would not have been able to do any of these things if I had not already been involved in my local community through many activities. It was a big help having friends who were not connected to space activism. Space activists can be very narrow. Some are not.
The space field also needs artists as more than people to draw in the public. That's important. But artists also need to be involved in leadership as well. Artists are typically much better at communication than techies. There are exceptions, but that tends to be true. Artists listen better than most people. They are also more open minded. These are qualities sadly lacking in too much of contemporary society. The current financial meltdown can be attributed in part to financial leaders who came with schemes that didn't really reflect reality in too many ways. Yes, accounting, numbers and such like are important -- but so are the less quantifiable things.
That's enough for now. I don't want to hit people over the head. I hope I haven't.
I had returned to New Jersey from grad work in social psychology some years before. Upon my return, I rejoined the church I attended in my youth -- St. James Episcopal in Hamilton Township, New Jersey. I met up with some old friends and made some new ones. The McKenzies were active in Scottish groups and Revolutionary War reenactment groups. They had also started a poetry group. I got a little involved in all three. Through the poetry group I was introduced to a large part of the local arts scene. I eventually became a member of the Trenton Artists Workshop Association.
Shortly after returning to New Jersey, I contacted the Princeton Ballet after reading that they would perform the Nutcracker Ballet locally. While I had done some modern dance photography, I had never photographed a ballet before. The company, after seeing what I had done, made me their primary photographer for the rest of my time in New Jersey. This gave me another link to the local arts scene.
Links to the local arts community interestingly enough also gave me links to political leaders and various parts of state government bureaucracy that normal civil servants (I made my living by doing IT for New Jersey government) did not have. Michelle Mathesius, director of the Center Dancers, was married to the Bill Mathesius, then Mercer County Executive. Molly Merlino, active in TAWA, was married to state Senator Joe Merlino who was also president of the senate when the Democrats were in the majority.
Since I was a third generation Rutgers alum, getting active in Rutgers affairs was also fairly normal. I even did photography of Rutgers sports for a number of years.
Since my family had been active in the Anglican church for centuries, I was also drawn into that culture as more than a regular member. My photographic talent made a difference there as well.
My talents for photography and writing first got me attention in L5. Then, in 1981, I asked why I had never been called on a phone tree alert. I had been a bit active for a few years, knew society leaders somewhat and wondered what was going on. That's when I found out that there was no organization in New Jersey and that my name had come up as a person to organize New Jersey. Soon I had list of about 200 names of New Jersey residents who had volunteered to help out.
Over the next year I spent some time organizing the phone tree. I began calling people when alerts were sent out and simply asked them if they would phone people in their local area. Within a few months I had a functioning phone tree.
In the spring of 1982 I asked my assistants if any of them were amenable to organizing an L5 chapter. We started meeting over the next six months planning a chapter. Our first formal meeting -- announced via the phone tree -- was in August. At that meeting -- held at Bob Werb's apartment complex -- we decided on a course of action. Our first event was doing information tabling at the New Brunswick Octoberfest. I had participated in that event before as an artist.
That fall I approached the New Jersey State Museum about our group participating in Super Science Weekend -- an event to promote science in January. Their reply was illuminating. They said that because they knew me (through art and political connections) they trusted me. If they hadn't, there was a real chance that they would not have allowed our group to participate.
Super Science weekend in 1983 was a success for our group. People came by and chatted. They took literature. The museum director stopped by to check us out. She was favorably impressed. Our group was fairly young but mature. Most of us worked in tech fields. There was a significant contingent from Bell Labs.
That summer I told Dick Peery, the museum's planetarium director, about Spaceweek. I inquired whether our group could organize a Spaceday event at the museum. The museum was amenable.
Over the next year I recruited speakers and exhibits. Since the Space Studies Institute was located in Princeton, they were happy to supply both a speaker and an exhibit. The same was true of RCA Astroelectronics. Through Mensa connections I recruited a history professor from Philadelphia. I hit real paydirt through the Princeton Astronomy Association. In January 1984 they hosted a talk by J. R. Thompson, former chief engineer of the space shuttle main engine project. He was at that time a deputy director of Forrestal Labs. His talk was excellent -- and he was happy to also give the same talk at Spaceday.
Then came Spaceday. Dick Peery and I chatted a bit before the doors opened. He cautioned me to not get my hopes up too high. On a normal July Saturday only about 50-75 people would come through the museum. He told me if we got 500 the museum would call it a success and talk about doing it again. I don't know if Dick saw the three page feature article in the Trenton Times the day before. Our publicist had gotten us a good deal of attention already.
The day went well. The museum director came around in the afternoon. She seemed impressed. All the participants -- including people from the Princeton Astronomy Association and a local rocket club -- were happy that they participated.
The next week Dick phoned me. He was wildly enthusiastic now. He told me 2000 people came. He added that the museum director had said it was the best summer event that they had ever had. Then Dick got a taste of my sense of humor. I laconically asked if he wanted to do it again. There was a pause -- and then Dick realized I was joking.
I told Mark Hopkins of L5 about my success. He was quite impressed. He recruited me as an L5 Spaceweek coordinator.
I'm now going to explicitly state some lessons we can learn from this success.
I would not have been able to do any of these things if I had not already been involved in my local community through many activities. It was a big help having friends who were not connected to space activism. Space activists can be very narrow. Some are not.
The space field also needs artists as more than people to draw in the public. That's important. But artists also need to be involved in leadership as well. Artists are typically much better at communication than techies. There are exceptions, but that tends to be true. Artists listen better than most people. They are also more open minded. These are qualities sadly lacking in too much of contemporary society. The current financial meltdown can be attributed in part to financial leaders who came with schemes that didn't really reflect reality in too many ways. Yes, accounting, numbers and such like are important -- but so are the less quantifiable things.
That's enough for now. I don't want to hit people over the head. I hope I haven't.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Victory Night Party
I only went to one party Election Night. I spent most of the day doing poll work. Then came dinner. I made it to the party around 9 PM.
The first person I recognized was Terry Lierman, former chair of the
Maryland Democratic Party, now Chief of Staff for Majority Steny Hoyer.
We exchanged a few friendly words. He left for a party in Annapolis.
I wandered around, saw people lined up for free food. Since I had dinner, I skipped the food. I did buy a glass of wine for $4 + $1 tip.
I ran into a few people from the Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt
Democratic Club (Greenbelt). One of them offered to watch my coat and
extraneous camera gear while I went around and took photographs.
The first real conversation I had was with Paul Pinsky. We're both
runners. I mentioned doing the Marine Corps Marathon back in 1996. He
seemed impressed. He's only done 5Ks and 10Ks. I mentioned that was my
usual length for a race. I joked about doing another marathon
eventually. Paul's a very friendly guy. One important thing in
politics for Paul is livable communities. I asked Paul if he was going
up to the big party in Baltimore. He reported that he planned to leave
the Prince George's County party after about an hour and go home and watch the
rest of the returns there.
Every time Obama won another state a cheer went up from the crowd. Lots
of people said this change was a long time coming.
I got into one lengthy (well, lengthy for the setting) conversation with
a middle aged African American man. I brought up the party in Baltimore
with him as well and said both our Senators -- Mikulski and Cardin --
would be at that party. He told me how both of them made frequent
appearances at labor events. I told him how I got involved with the
Mikulski reelection campaign in 2004 because of my interest in space
exploration. I said Senator Mikulski held views similar to mine. She
strongly supports NASA, but speaks up when NASA screws up. I also
mentioned how the report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board showed all sorts of problems that some of us who had worked at NASA had
noticed years before. I did add that Senator Cardin was also proving to
be a thoughtful legislator on science and tech issues. We both
wholeheartedly agreed that both senators were fine people. We hoped
they would stay in office for many more years.
Around 10 PM I decided to forget the Baltimore party. It was 45 minutes
away. Home was only 8 minutes. Staying at the Prince George's County
seemed more sensible. I stayed around awhile longer. Somebody bought
lots of pizza for the crowd. I had a small slice.
Most people were really excited about the results. When it became
evident that Obama was going to win a major victory we all became
excited. When results of various state contests were announced we
cheered every Democratic victory. I really cheered when I found out Kay
Hagan had beat Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina.
I left after 11 PM. I wanted to be home at a decent hour. I saw both
McCain's concession speech and Obama's acceptance speech at home.
It was a truly exciting evening. I'm glad I was able to be a small part
of it.
I've posted all my photos here.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Anxious with Reason Panel at New America Foundation
This was a most interesting panel discussion featuring Carl Van Horn and Cliff Zukin from the Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University. David Kusnet, author of Love the Work, Hate the Job, also contributed to the discussion. Kusnet's book looks at events in 2000 at four Seattle workplaces. Tech industry is well represented in the book with Boeing and Microsoft.
The conflict at Boeing was between technical people and financial people. Technical people were focused more on quality, financial people more on control. After the conflict company headquarters was shifted from Seattle, where the company is located, to Chicago. I will say this does not appear to be a good move. It isolates top management from the people who do the work and lessens communication between the groups.
Kusnet reported that workers liked the work they were doing, but hated the job. He described a breakdown of the old social contract where loyalty was rewarded with security and commitment to work in return for respect.
Zukin and Van Horn discussed research performed at Rutgers about The Anxious American Worker: New Work Trends Survey of U.S. Workers Reveals Deep-Seated Concern About their Futures.
Some of the things that Zukin stressed included:
I will note that we need to see greater connections between those at the top of hierarchies and people at the bottom. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board report on that disaster noted that people further up the hierarchy did not listen to people lower down. This is a classic reason why highly authoritarian organizations fail.
The conflict at Boeing was between technical people and financial people. Technical people were focused more on quality, financial people more on control. After the conflict company headquarters was shifted from Seattle, where the company is located, to Chicago. I will say this does not appear to be a good move. It isolates top management from the people who do the work and lessens communication between the groups.
Kusnet reported that workers liked the work they were doing, but hated the job. He described a breakdown of the old social contract where loyalty was rewarded with security and commitment to work in return for respect.
Zukin and Van Horn discussed research performed at Rutgers about The Anxious American Worker: New Work Trends Survey of U.S. Workers Reveals Deep-Seated Concern About their Futures.
Some of the things that Zukin stressed included:
- On the job training is valued most.
- Americans think they need more training for their jobs.
- There is lots of dissatisfaction with employment and levels of training.
- Unemployment is getting longer and longer.
- To create a competitive economy we need competitive workers. I will note that this means not workers who will spend lots of time at work, but people who are actually good at what they are doing.
- Education and training are misdirected.
- College is not for everybody. I think this needs to be stressed today. Van Horn noted that vocational training is of considerable value.
- We need more focus on employer based training.
- More accountability is needed regarding the educational establishment. I will note that all too often ideas are rolled out and then not checked. Failure is too often blamed on students and parents, not schools or educational doctrine. That might be changing.
I will note that we need to see greater connections between those at the top of hierarchies and people at the bottom. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board report on that disaster noted that people further up the hierarchy did not listen to people lower down. This is a classic reason why highly authoritarian organizations fail.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Democracy and Violent Rhetoric
Yesterday evening Jeffrey Feldman, author of "Outright Barbarous: How the Violent Language of the Right Poisons American Democracy" gave an excellent talk promoting his views and book.
Early in his talk he brought up a tragic incident in Tennesee where a man killed a few people in a Unitarian-Universalist church. Right wing pundits first characterized the attack as an attack on Christianity. Then the real story came out. He was a violent right winger -- somewhat mentally unbalanced -- who hated U-U because it was too left wing. Hmm. I know at least four U-U members. They are all rather intelligent, and tend to be friendly. Normal people -- even conservatives that I know -- respect and like these people.
Feldman says we need civil arguments -- ones in which all participants try to listen to each other and treat each other with respect. Small groups seem to favor such discussions. I will say it is easier to learn from each other and have civil, even friendly, discussions in small groups. He states, quite correctly, that people who engage in violent rhetoric that demeans others frustrate, even end, the kind of discussion we need for a healthy, free, democratic society.
After the talk I raised a question about reasonable, responsible conservatives. I know more than a few via professional and social connections. The way I raised the question was by citing a forum in the National Review titled The War on Drugs is Lost. I mentioned that I have long opposed the war on drugs and welcomed this forum. The National Review people even included at least one liberal Democrat, Kurt Schmoke, then mayor of Baltimore. Other people represented a variety of viewpoints. To me, this forum seems responsible and free of the violent rhetoric that Feldman condemns. The forum even got me to occasionally glance at NRO for a few years. Some of the pieces made my eyes roll. Some also seemed rather thoughtful and informative. I will admit I don't look at NRO much these days. I do think we need a calmer discussion -- and include people of all persuasions in that discussion.
When I got home, I read the preface to Feldman's book. While I generally agree with what he wrote, one essay he mentioned got my eyes to roll when I first read it. After the Virginia Tech rampage, E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post wrote a column in which he asked why can't we be sensible about guns the way we are about airline security. While Dionne's column was indeed moderate and thoughtful in tone, it also displayed the man's ignorance -- at least to those of us who know too much about the TSA. In fact the TSA is a failure. When they test their own security by trying to smuggle guns through, over 90% of the time the guns get through. Last September at a Women in Aerospace program on the state of aviation security today I also learned that there is a college student who has smuggled high explosives onto airplanes just to show he could. This is the kind of information that gets lost in the highly charged rhetoric we hear today.
Early in his talk he brought up a tragic incident in Tennesee where a man killed a few people in a Unitarian-Universalist church. Right wing pundits first characterized the attack as an attack on Christianity. Then the real story came out. He was a violent right winger -- somewhat mentally unbalanced -- who hated U-U because it was too left wing. Hmm. I know at least four U-U members. They are all rather intelligent, and tend to be friendly. Normal people -- even conservatives that I know -- respect and like these people.
Feldman says we need civil arguments -- ones in which all participants try to listen to each other and treat each other with respect. Small groups seem to favor such discussions. I will say it is easier to learn from each other and have civil, even friendly, discussions in small groups. He states, quite correctly, that people who engage in violent rhetoric that demeans others frustrate, even end, the kind of discussion we need for a healthy, free, democratic society.
After the talk I raised a question about reasonable, responsible conservatives. I know more than a few via professional and social connections. The way I raised the question was by citing a forum in the National Review titled The War on Drugs is Lost. I mentioned that I have long opposed the war on drugs and welcomed this forum. The National Review people even included at least one liberal Democrat, Kurt Schmoke, then mayor of Baltimore. Other people represented a variety of viewpoints. To me, this forum seems responsible and free of the violent rhetoric that Feldman condemns. The forum even got me to occasionally glance at NRO for a few years. Some of the pieces made my eyes roll. Some also seemed rather thoughtful and informative. I will admit I don't look at NRO much these days. I do think we need a calmer discussion -- and include people of all persuasions in that discussion.
When I got home, I read the preface to Feldman's book. While I generally agree with what he wrote, one essay he mentioned got my eyes to roll when I first read it. After the Virginia Tech rampage, E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post wrote a column in which he asked why can't we be sensible about guns the way we are about airline security. While Dionne's column was indeed moderate and thoughtful in tone, it also displayed the man's ignorance -- at least to those of us who know too much about the TSA. In fact the TSA is a failure. When they test their own security by trying to smuggle guns through, over 90% of the time the guns get through. Last September at a Women in Aerospace program on the state of aviation security today I also learned that there is a college student who has smuggled high explosives onto airplanes just to show he could. This is the kind of information that gets lost in the highly charged rhetoric we hear today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
